Orson Scott Card was unknown to me - thanks Gruff. I need to focus more on writing now than reading, but will be searching Green Metropolis. I believe life could be much better than it is - one can obviously spend one's time doing this for oneself and family - but this isn't remotely enough for me in a society armed to the teeth and prepared to do what it does. We do not seem to be able to arm ourselves for peace or reward what needs to be done. Hegel thought the availability of history gave us the ability to transcend - though I'd agree with Popper that available notions of history tend to be meaningless. One only has to think of the dross I was taught about the British in India to know how dangerous "history" can be. Almost non of us now would want to serve the British Empire or be a Nazi or a fascist, yet one can wonder how many of us would have been given a general tendency to soak up propaganda. When I started teaching management, the discipline was critical and aimed at industrial democracy - it has ended-up placating the wealthy and as a rhetoric only fit for ridicule - despite readings of Habermas, Foucault, Gramsci and others - their work just some kind of gloss over business as usual. I go a long way with Molly, though her words are not my bag.
What strikes me is that we live in a society (strikes came out via typo to stirkes - this seems descriptive!) capable of massive waste. Millions on sports players (the Indian Premier League is destroying cricket however much I may like the instant appeal of Indian dancing girls - sorry Vam - the sport has collapsed under the spectacle), packaging everywhere - our ability to throw money at everything unimportant is dire. Yet there could be beauty in realising we could re-channel all this. A recent Horizon (BBC "science") standardly annoyed me for its cursory "science" (hot fusion) - but it did put forward an interesting model on power consumption suggesting developed countries need to reduce to allow developing countries to increase - and just how impossible this would be with existing technology. It raised a certain light about being in things together. Science of this kind tends to ignore political intrigue as only fit for ridicule - for me it is the gutter. We tends to crave leadership to help us through to something better and fairer - but leadership is generally a corrupting force in need of control - with control another complex in need of unpacking in a clearer view of history. CH Waddington said we had succeeded, through the use of science by unscientific men, in producing the modern factory from the medieval bear garden. We need a sense of incompetence and mistake through science, history, art and literature and more sense of when rationality-decency has prevailed. This raises questions about how we evaluate everything - and nothing - through targets and the rest - an area that connects Stalin, Mao and the Nazis to American Management By Objectives - on in the UK to New Labour. These are not philosophical issues in my view - no sensible system would be started where we are. The beautiful and the ugly was taught to me by a police sergeant. 'Always remember Neil', he said, 'When chasing down the bad guy it's only by the grace of god that you aren't chasing yourself'. What we lack is trustworthy science, history and the rest. This rather suits existing vested interests. Somehow we don't recognise that one can teach Gramsci on hegemony and be teaching another Thatcher how to destroy the interests she doesn't like. Modern forms of this tend to be called public choice theories. Working them out on paper tends to exclude real choice from most people - and also responsibility whether one wants it or not (for there must be an element of contribution where this is possible). I always hope that if I get to India and meet Vam, that he doesn't hang me from the nearest tree in virtuous reprisal for the misdeeds of my countrymen. I know he won't - yet there is something in British- Subcontinent history that needs to be remembered and forgotten in some reconciliatory and purposeful move of deconstruction. A couple of peach vodkas will be enough between us, because he will know I know and feel shame. This is not to belittle the tragedy - but perhaps a recognition we can move on even from such ugly blots. I believe that only world government can help (Russell thought much the same) - the matters are only decidable through practice and it's practice we are barred from, not philosophising. There is much of this ideal impossible we could create - though The Lords of Poverty at the UN present a counterpoint of almost exactly what we don't want. I think, in these areas, we cannot cross the t's and dot the i's. Courage would help, but much of current practice encourages high cortisol and the stress monkey alphas generate. On 20 Feb, 15:18, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I wanted to get back to your thought on this, Justin: > > "Why is it that we separate everyone into those with whom we wish to > associate and those with whom we will refuse to have anything to do > with? Why is this pecking order thing so big? Our finite beings can be > either "pretty" or "pretty ugly" and when we get into a room there is > such an arranging of everyone into those that are "in" and those that > are "out". I have been so attracted lately to the ugly, old and infirm > and so turned off by the beautiful lately. Where does that come from?" > > I think here, you are still working your way toward the infinite, > through the finite. I thought it was interesting that when you set up > your place of being, you included so many aspects of the beautiful > that I could see the beauty there reading your description. Yet, > surrounded by beauty, up came the ugly. And now, turned off by beauty > and attracted to ugly, you are hearing the same calling of the > infinite. Because, I think, it is the charge we have on what is > beautiful or ugly that restricts us to the finite and separates one > from the other. That charge that tells us that our own shadow nature > is drawing us into a transcendent experience so that we can include > more of our infinite nature into our everyday living. Somewhere along > the line, as we recognize ourselves in both the beautiful and ugly, it > all becomes something more (yet the artists continue to call it > beauty) and we can connect our individuality with that beauty in all > of life. > > On Feb 12, 12:01 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > I guess ultimately what I mean by viable is "is true". I am concerned > > about some issues that have to due with questioning and answers and > > the effect of answers on questioning. Often "the alternative to > > fundamentalism" is expressed as an answer. I think that its not so > > simple. Why is it that one who experiences real enlightenment does not > > stay in that blessed state, or stay aware of it in the same way > > (because in fact we are always "in" it in a sense), even though the > > memory of it remains and determines ones world view? Yes I know that > > only recognition separates me from the truth... perhaps the answer is > > the foundation of ethics and what is needed most is courage. But > > intellectually I have trouble reconciling the notion of a truth that > > takes more than just knowing in a purely intellectual sense to > > realize. I have questions about the meaning of knowing in relation to > > these matters and more importantly I am afraid that I see that the > > process of asking and answering questions which is the foundation of > > philosophy itself, may be inadequate to the task. I am concerned that > > "Just In Truth" may be a distortion... that the "Just" is an unwelcome > > limitation or rather a limitation that prevents the "In Truth". > > Perhaps I need to change my name to "Hello" or something like that. > > The debates of Greece lack something. > > > I recently attempted to set up a kind of secular monastery. A place > > for Being. I had visions of those around me working together and being > > able to be alone when they felt the need to withdraw. Not a somber > > place but one full of art and culture. I envisioned beautiful private > > spaces where you could withdraw to be completely alone and public > > communal spaces that you could go to to be with those you love. Lots > > of gardens. I even bought a sizable piece of land to begin on. It was > > not a public thing. I wanted my friends to all be able to live > > together. What happened was the whole thing became a kind of clash of > > limitations. The finite aspects of everyone ... it was as if when > > confronted with each other we find we can't stand each other. Love is > > not transitive nor is it reflexive. Each wants to determine the other > > in order to determine his or her own self and their ideas conflict. I > > could not communicate well enough or maybe the whole thing was just my > > idea and not what others wanted. Why is it that we separate everyone > > into those with whom we wish to associate and those with whom we will > > refuse to have anything to do with? Why is this pecking order thing so > > big? Our finite beings can be either "pretty" or "pretty ugly" and > > when we get into a room there is such an arranging of everyone into > > those that are "in" and those that are "out". I have been so attracted > > lately to the ugly, old and infirm and so turned off by the beautiful > > lately. Where does that come from? God I sound like a whining > > teenager! Communal living can be successful but only certain forms > > have worked and even those, even in the monasteries there is trouble. > > Some day maybe we will understand better. I actually think that > > neurology may in the end help us understand although the path is so > > dangerous. > > > It seems that one of the things we do a lot of here is to "exchange > > opinions" - not just in this news group but in our whole culture. I > > wish I had a culture in which I could do more that that with people. > > We are all such porcupines but this pursuit of the truth in the > > philosophical sense ultimately needs to be.... augmented? is that the > > word? I read my own words and have a problem with them: "We have so > > little of the truth out now. How can you ask for less?" > > > The problem is that being and meaning and action and knowing all are > > beginning to loose their boundaries for me. I am tired of being > > Justintruth. I guess for me I see a kind of limitation to pure > > knowing. A lack of finitude and too much infinitude as Kierkegaard > > calls it. I bet I could find my form of despair in his book! > > > Oh well! As the Brits say... "Chin up!"... and as Galileo is reported > > to have said: "Yes!...but the world still whirls!" Form me the cure > > will almost certainly be agriculture. > > > Anyway...that's roughly what I meant by viability. > > > I am glad that you "... see no problem whatsoever with throwing out > > all fundamentalist interpretations with a healthy exhalation, and > > living (your) life completely free of them." It seems like the right > > thing to me. > > > Good Luck, > > > Justintruth > > > On Feb 11, 6:10 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Wow! > > > Nice to see you again, Justin. > > > > This is a particularly interesting point: > > > > "The real issue is not which fundamentalist interpretation is correct > > > but whether the alternative to them is viable." > > > > What do you mean by viable? I'm wondering, because I see no problem > > > whatsoever with throwing out all fundamentalist interpretations with a > > > healthy exhalation, and living my life completely free of them. This seems > > > perfectly viable to me. > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Justintruth <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > One of the things I hear is that we are infinite in the sense that the > > > > universe is physically infinite. Whether it is infinite or finite and > > > > unbounded is a valid question but I think the infinity that > > > > Shakespeare is referring to is not infinite in that sense of the word. > > > > It's not infinite in the sense of "big without bound". > > > > > The term infinite is a negation but it is a negation of boundaries. > > > > The "finis" in the second part of the word is roughly "boundaries". > > > > Infinite then becomes without boundaries with the usual meaning a > > > > special case. In mathematics the concept of infinity has been > > > > separated from the concept of "without boundary" and there are finite > > > > and unbounded sets. But here we are speaking in the traditional - pre- > > > > topological - sense. > > > > > One then learns that the process of establishing boundaries is > > > > critical in the experience of experience as a space in which there are > > > > things. In fact "raising the object from the background" requires that > > > > we establish that part of experience that "is" or at least "is > > > > something" from that which "is nothing". The boundary is that surface > > > > where being ends and nothing begins (or at least another being). That > > > > which is not is space - a complete vacuum. This occurs when one > > > > interjects nothingness into ones experience. This is why the vacuum is > > > > - exactly - nothing. Even though modern physics has moved beyond these > > > > concepts superficially it still maintains them albeit in modified > > > > form. After all when we proclaim the presence of the so-called vacuum > > > > energy we are distinguishing it from a "true" vacuum in the pre- > > > > quantum sense. > > > > > The cessation of that interpretation, and the transcendence beyond > > > > space (and time) found fleetingly in mystical experience is the > > > > foundation of our immortality, our infinity, and our likeness to god. > > > > When space and time cease one experiences the truth that the universe > > > > is not distinct from us and in fact, in a sense we include it in us as > > > > much as it includes us in it, and one experiences god. > > > > > Kierkegaard's reference is particularly fascinating. His cataloging of > > > > the various modes of despair associated with the various possible > > > > relationships of infinity to the finite in us presumes a kind of > > > > identity that unifies the infinite and the finite in a sense. As the > > > > proverb says: "At first I saw a tree and it was a tree, then I saw a > > > > tree and it was the Tao, then I saw the tree and it was a tree." > > > > Ultimately, we are who we are with all of the finite limitations of > > > > our biology. We are a particular person with particular talents and > > > > capabilities. Yet we have this capacity to interpret our life in a > > > > sacred and not profane way. Kierkegaard's analysis of despair as sin, > > > > especially his analysis of what he calls demonic despair, the despair > > > > that is lucid and deliberate is most interesting. It would have been > > > > interesting to > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
